Biblical Hebrew Forum

[James Read <J.Read-2 AT sms.ed.ac.uk>]

Sorry, that should be Genesis 10:1b. Sorry for the confusion it caused.

James Christian




Quoting K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>:

> James:
> Right now I don’t see you as a serious scholar, rather you keep repeating
> the same claims without substantiating them.
>
> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 12:51 AM, James Read <J.Read-2 AT sms.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > this was your answer to the detailed breakdown of the structure of Genesis
> > 5 that I gave you? I've started to notice that this is characteristic. When
> > you are given major issues that need to be dealt with in order for your
> > theory to be accepted you completely sidestep them as if they weren't there
> > or were never even raised.
> >
> > Quoting K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>:
> >
> >  James:
> > > Why are you putting so much effort into trying to disprove this
> > > understanding of the text?
> > I'm not putting effort into disproving anything. On the contrary, your
> > theory could only be given recognition if it proved to stand up to this kind
> > of test. Evidently it doesn't and that's why you feel the need to completely
> > sidestep the major issues being raised e.g.
> >
> > To what context is the 'them' of Genesis 5:1b referring if Genesis 5:1a is
> > a colophon of the preceeding document?
>
> There is no “them” in Genesis 5:1b.
>
> > You have also been given an outline of the literary structure of Genesis 5
> > that both works and stands in contradiction to your theory. Your refusal to
> > face these issues head on does not do anything to give more credence to your
> > theory. It just makes it look like something you have clearly already
> > decided on and are not willing engage fully in an objective consideration
> > of.
> >
> > James Christian
> >
> > P.S. I find most of what you have outlined below irrelevant as I have
> > already made it clear that I agree that 'generations' doesn't work. The
> > point is that 'document' doesn't either and you have been asked to consider
> > the third possibility 'history' which works for all and has none of the
> > problems associated with 'generations' or 'document'. Please, if you are
> > going to continue, stay focused on this distinction otherwise we are both
> > talking to straw men.
>
> From a lexicographic standpoint, I find “history” to be problematic. That’s
> why I don’t consider it. Consider again the following, and the meaning given
> in a previous message.
>
> >  One way I deal with lexicography is to start with the easy cases, then go
> > > to
> > > the hard ones. If the easy cases give one clear meaning, then I make the
> > > assumption that the harder to understand verses use the same meaning.
> > > There
> > > are times where that practice has allowed me to recognize idioms, literary
> > > conventions and sometimes just make sense of a verse.
> > >
> > > Now it is clear from Genesis 2:4, 6:9a and 37:2a that this does not refer
> > > to
> > > generations. This is an easy case. Further, there is a disconnect between
> > > Genesis 37:2a and what follows. Another easy case. Not so easy, but still
> > > noticeable, there is a disconnect, like a full pause, between Genesis 6:9a
> > > and 6:9b, and Genesis 2:4 contextually and stylistically belongs to
> > > chapter
> > > one. Then I look at harder to recognize verses, such as Genesis 5:1–2, and
> > > see that they can be understood as a closing title and authorship claim.
> > > None necessarily contradict that claim.
> > >
> > > In order to disprove that these are following title and authorship claims,
> > > you need to show that the only way to read the formula is as a preceding
> > > title. I don’t think you can.
> You didn’t answer my final paragraph above.
>
> Karl W. Randolph.
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew



--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.